From below article it appears that 21 can still hold its own in dogfight:

Try to point at and shoot well flown MiG-21!

Predrag Pavlovic, dipl.ing. and Nenad Pavlovic, dipl.ing, JAT Airways

Maneuverability of modern fighter is measured by how slow it can fly and how high angle of attack it can sustain and still turn. During some war situations, US evaluation and Aggressor use, MiG-21 has shown it can keep pace with modern planes in this area. Aircraft manufacturer at one time considered this irrelevant and imposed restrictions on angle of attack. Flying above allowed 28-33 degrees local angle of attack at low speeds makes possible to relatively safely achieve a maneuverability once considered privilege of modern fighters.

Couple years ago reports and testimonies appeared in the media about a dogfight during the Israeli-Arab War '73. when the Egyptian MiG-21 pilot managed to do a Split-S maneuver at the start altitude of 3000 feet, less than half minimum airspace the manual says (about 6750 ft). Appropriate simulation can be found on the internet:

Initiated by this event, some American and Israeli enthusiasts (once pilots of their AF fighters), one of which has a private squadron of various Russian fighters, attempted to replicate that minimum altitude needed to complete Split-S figure in the two-seater MiG-21. Previous consultation with Israeli ace, who participated in that dogfight in '73. war, did not help test to be successful. Attempts were carried out at the higher altitude (5 km) and the height loss during the figure was in accordance with flight manual. It remained unclear whether ’73 event was result of "special skills or superhuman strength of the Egyptian pilot needed to withstand the required g-loads”.

Recently disclosed files of the official MiG-21 evaluation in the U.S. revealed some unexpected capabilities that can be correlated with the "inexplicable" ’73. maneuver. MiGs were brought to America via Israel, in the late '60s as a result of pilot error or fled from Iraq and Algeria. Later they were bought from Indonesia. The MiG-21 in the U.S. Air Force is designated YF-110.
The report of a MiG-21F shows nothing particularly unusual, except for maneuvering capabilities and behavior/handling at low speeds described as "class above competition”. Besides that, if competitors tried to follow MiG-21F at high alpha, their engine experienced shutdown or compressor stall. MiG could perform "hammerhead" turn (wing over/stall turn/renversement) at 100 knots (knot = 1.853 km/h), figure where at the end of the vertical climb pilot add rudder (with the opposite aileron and forward stick) to push the plane in the dive. Rudder is effective from 30 knots. With the stick fully backward, the plane flies at 210 km/h, the rolling oscillations are present, but there is no lift breakdown or the tendency towards spin. If during the evaluation, loss of control due to uncoordinated controls occurred, it was in the form of roll-off (usually for 180°) instead of much more dangerous yaw-off. To put the plane back under control it was necessary only to release controls. MiG-21 proved to be docile, safer to fly than MIG-17. During the hundred flight tests engine compressor stall was never experienced.
U.S. of course, used MiGs in dogfight evaluation against their aircraft. Latter, they formed "Aggressor" squadron of MiGs and other fighters for the dogfight simulation with regular American aircraft.

Figure 2, 3. MiG-21 on testing in the U.S.

During MiG testing, it was clear that U.S. pilots have not relied on Soviet pilot’s manuals or they did not have one at the beginning. That is why the aircraft ability was fully exploited. Test pilots had thousands of flight hours experience on dozens of types of aircraft. Those who have survived the testing of U.S. supersonic fighters
F-100/101/104/4 (many of planes were called "widow makers"), learned to recognize the pre-stall/spin signs and use rudder for rolling the aircraft at higher angles of attack.

Figure 4. Some of the results of MiG-21 testing in the United States

Reportedly, if Vietnamese pilots had adequate training, the U.S. fighter shot-down ratio figures would be much worse in that war. In the hands of the well trained pilots, MiG would always outmaneuvered Phantom. US unveils graphs depicting not only far better instantaneous turn performance of Fishbed C compared to F-4D but also better sustained maneuverability. MiG-21 Aggressor pilots respected only the most modern fighters because they do not lose so much speed in turn even at low speeds. However, appearance of all-aspect infrared missiles reduced the importance of sustained turns (M2000, F-18E, Gripen …are not brilliant in the maintaining speed in turn). If MiG-21 had R-73 missile, it could easily take advantage of first shoot opportunity at close range against any new fighter.
The F-5E, fighter which does not fly above Mach 1.5, MiG-21 simulator, reportedly has shade better subsonic sustained turn maneuverability, but inferior controllability at low speeds. Maneuverability is the ability to change speed and direction of flight path (velocity vector pointing) and controllability - ability of change aircraft attitude (pitch/roll/yaw - nose pointing) and thrust (engine response - spool up time matters). When the aircraft initial flight path in dogfight is anti-parallel flyby, combat will inevitably develop so that someone goes in a climb with rolling scissors - turn reversals along the opponent’s flight path to remain behind the opponent. If the F-5E does not gain an advantage before the speed drops below 200 knots, MiG will start winning. First look at the configuration of the aircraft, MiG – delta with the sweep near 60°, and Tiger with nearly straight wings, would suggest the opposite, that MiG is in trouble at low speed.

Even the mighty F-15 Eagle had no solution in dogfight below 150-250 knots against MiG-21 in US Aggressor hands. At the beginning of dogfight, at the speed of 400-500 knots MiG-21 will turn at max g loosing 70 knots per second, ending at the speed of 70 knots in less than 90º of turn (deceleration of 3.5 g, more intensive than Harrier’s VIFF turn). Reportedly, no other aircraft can do that. This way MiG will remain behind every opponent still having sufficient controllability for gun tracking using rudder rolls. Opponents would think that at this speed MiG can only bring down the nose and dive, but the MiG at less than 100 knots has sufficient pitch authority to raise the nose at enemy. If F-15 tries to follow, ’21 should execute 'barrel-roll ' to remain behind the Eagle.
It is obvious that MiG-21 'Aggressor' pilots pulled full aft stick in turn regardless of the lateral oscillations, roll-off and temporary loss of control.

Figure 5. Scissors maneuver

Latter, the F-15 pilots learned (in a hard way) not to accept maneuvering at slow speeds, not to allow to be drown into a series of turn reversals, but to withdraw and re-attack at higher speeds using 3D turns and it’s higher thrust/weight ratio. F-15 with 45º swept wing and low horizontal tail, at higher angle of attack becomes longitudinally superstable, so it can not achieve more than about 30º angle of attack.

On the example of lift and stability of the aircraft with the 45º swept wing and high-set horizontal tail it can be seen that the lift begins to decline at 10º (buffeting starts), the wings are stalled at the 20º (the airflow separates from the wing), and max body lift is at 35-40º after which it decreases. Delta wing of MiG-21 with sweep of 57 º retains stable airflow to very high angles of attack.
Longitudinal stability is positive where the curve has a downward slope. In this case, the position of the horizontal tail is causing longitudinal instability at 15º, and at 35-40º angle of attack aircraft is trimmed without tail deflection. MiG-21 has no problem with longitudinal stability (except with air to ground armament with low fuel) and the plane in the example would have a limit at 15º angle of attack.
Yaw stability curve shows that the aircraft is unstable at 15º, what is not uncommon. Few modern fighters are stable at over 20º, but it is not a problem if the aircraft maintains lateral stability i.e. roll due to yaw. Roll stability curve is increasing as the lift increase, so it similarly comes to the instability, in this case at about 20º angle of attack. Shall the plane have a tendency toward spin (at no deflection of the control surfaces!) show the curve of dynamic directional stability where factors are static yaw and roll stability along the inertial characteristics of the aircraft. In this example, the plane is at stall just above 20º angle of attack, while MiG-21 is stable at well over 30º at low Mach numbers.
Curves correspond to a particular Mach number, at some other speed they can vary significantly.

Figure 6. Example lift and stability of aircraft

Soviet training was based on a relatively small number of flight hours on a MiG, which is used for training the primary purpose of aircraft, interception of fighters-bombers, under ground control. Pilots are not encouraged to explore the flight envelope. The aircraft is designed to fly faster and higher. Slow speeds were irrelevant, except for landing. In the first combat manuals, the performance at altitudes only above 5 km were presented. Later, it turned out that there are many practical constraints due to which the projected max altitudes and speeds are rarely used.
MiG-21 wing has no camber or twist along span. The relative thickness of the higher end of the wing than in the root. There are few prestall signs. Prestall buffet begins much earlier (at 50-100 km/h higher speed), its intensity is light and slightly decreases at higher α. Below Mach 0.4 buffet does not develop. Just before stall α, aircraft nose would start wandering accompanied by more noticeable wing rocking (roll oscillations that intensify thru the stall), symptoms of dynamic directional instability.
Stalling proceeds more vigorously with fewer signs at higher subsonic speeds.

Ailerons are ineffective in countering roll oscillations and rudder would push aircraft into a spin. Setting control surfaces to the neutral position immediately after the onset of stall would restore normal flight conditions. The aircraft is longitudinally stable in air combat configuration at any internal fuel quantity.

In those days when MiG-21 was designed, electronic flight controls to limit the angle of attack in function of Mach number didn’t exist. A fighter was built primarily for high speeds, high altitude interceptions. At slower speeds previous generations MiG-19/17 were better.

Designers put the angle of attack indicator, calibrated in local angle of attack, to warn the pilot of approaching stall limit. At recommended and allowed limit 28 units (about 17º true angle of attack) safety margin to stall is from 13º at Mach 0.2 to 3º at Mach 0.95.
So there is large margin between allowed angle of attack and stall angles of attack especially at lower Mach numbers.
At higher speeds, the angle of attack is limited by tail pitching power.

So, the low speed turning capabilities were not fully exploited. If situation comes, like it happened to that Egyptian pilot during war, there is an additional lift potential.

During the Split-S figure, speed should not be increased. The closer to stall α is, the lesser the altitude loss is during figure. Below 600 km/h CAS entry speed aircraft cannot aerodynamically reach the allowed structural load factor so there is no need for superhuman physical stress. At higher speeds height loss in split-S at stall angle of attack is much more than 3000 ft.

Figure 7, 8, 9.

Because of its very high stall angle of attack at lower Mach numbers and good pitch control authority (large wing leading edge sweep produces strong vortical flow which shifts aerodynamic centre forward at high alpha, reducing stability thus allowing the tail to easily trim aircraft at more than 30° alpha), aircraft has a great point and shoot potential with modern IR missiles.

Although it is often said that the MiG-21 looses a lot of energy in turn, the truth is also that it has better sustained turn performance than most aircraft of its generation.
Tumansky engine proved almost stall/surge free at speeds far below minimums quoted in conservative Soviet flight manuals. All U.S. and European contemporary designs flamed out under same conditions. Engine has two shafts for optimized - different rotational speeds of low and high pressure compressors stages for a compressor blade stall resistance, feature that allows more compressors stages to be added for lowering specific fuel consumption. But it has unusually low number of compressor stages for a two-shaft design, contributing to reliability. Bad side of this philosophy is higher fuel consumption.
Despite the resistance of the compressor to the extreme conditions of airflow at the inlet, if afterburner is engaged at almost zero speed (well below the conservative engine envelope) other undesirable phenomena are possible. Distortions of the inlet airflow causes disruption of relations of air and fuel in the AB chamber, which changes the speed of combustion. Pressure fluctuations coupled to acoustic velocity fluctuation (AB chamber is also exposed to sound fatigue, the noise is up to 180 decibels) associated with combustion instability (called rumbling), can cause extreme resonant structural vibrations of the engine with subsequent engine destruction and the loss of the aircraft.

The published results of American evaluation relates to the F/PF models. BIS model has 15-20% higher ratio of inertia moments in yaw to roll. It certainly results in more sideslip during rolls and somewhat lower stall angle of attack, angle when breakdown of dynamic directional stability occurs. But the prevailing factor in this equation is the dihedral effect i.e. roll stability and it is the same in all models because it depends on airflow around the delta wing, so it can be expected good behavior of BIS model at low speeds also.

It should be borne in mind that prevailing effects at high angles of attack are dihedral and adverse yaw due to aileron deflection. Rudder is used for rolling and if the sideslip angle or yaw rate (induced in this way) crosses critical, result is the spin. Opposite aileron increases the roll rate through an additional sideslip angle i.e. 'adverse yaw'. In most modern aircraft application of such cross controls for 5-15 seconds, usually causes spin.

Figure 10. MiG-21 derivatives J-7G and JL-9

In general, the plane that has a lower stall speed is more maneuverable. At some speed, it will be able to achieve g-load equal to the square of the mentioned speeds quotient. The U.S. experience from simulated dogfights during exercises indicates the importance of the minimum speed and controllability at high angles of attack. That is why F-18 gets F-15/16 although its performances are considerably lower. Latest F-18E has still weaker performance, but better controllability. Angle of attack, at low speeds, of the F-16 and Gripen is limited to about 26º (Rafale and the Typhoon to a shade more). F-15 has max trimmed angle of attack 30-33º with poor roll response here. Against 'stealth' fighters F-22/35 and corresponding new Russian (whose all planform contour lines are parallel to a few main sweep angles - cm wavelength radar return angles, in addition to other 'stealth' measures and cost of 50 MiG-21), none of the listed has significant chances at medium range. Analysts agree that the close combat will remain inevitable, and that each aircraft armed with missiles cued by helmet sight has a chance, especially if it can reach high angles of attack. Even stealth fighters do not destroy opponents with death rays. Every component of the fire control/weapon system chain has limitations, from fighter radar to missile fuze. Towed mini decoy (laterally separated) with monopulse deception jammer/repeater or just simple towed corner reflector can draw away radar return signal centroid from towing aircraft. It could help surviving medium range combat even against stealth fighters.

The main disadvantages of MiG-21 are poor cockpit downward visibility, a proportionally small (but inline to generation) wingspan i.e. large induced drag (afterburner is needed for level flight at the absolute minimum speed, as at max allowed Mach number) and relatively slow response of two-shaft engine. All this causes poor performance on landing, especially in the case of go-around. Small fighter size means limited mission equipment carriage capacity.

It turns out that only important is to have a reliable and economical aircraft, a platform for carrying payload, with attack speed in the Mach 1.5+ class (that’s why a 15-20 years younger A-10 was withdrawn prematurely). The modern nav-attack equipment (simplified inertial system, GPS, displays…) is now relatively inexpensive to install even in a small propeller planes. MiG-21 operators missed opportunity to realize fact that with helmet cued, large acquisition angle R-73 missile that was available upgrade, MiG could achieve 50:1 kill ratio in dogfight against F-18/Gripen/Typhoon class fighters just because latter were 10-15 years late with similar weapon system. Instead of making best of it, MiG-21 operators opted to admire newer fighters.
Because of its good characteristics, even 50 years after MiG-21 became operational, some of its modifications are still in production in Asia.

Reference:

- Fighter Performance in Practice, Phantom versus MiG-21, Predrag and Nenad Pavlović,
eBay.com; Mod edit: link deleted. Please stop posting links to ebay auctions. You've done it before on this and other forums. Giving references is all well and good, but when those references repeatedly contain active ebay auctions with the same seller, it's pretty clear that you're advertising. Please stop it.
- Test and Evaluation Squadron, Nellis Air Force Base, Interviews;

That's fantastic - in isolation. The Mig 21 has, unless upgraded recently severely dated electronics, range/persistence issues, a lack of a decent warload, and very possibly fatigue issues. In it's day it was certainly a surprise to the many F4 pilots, but in todays BVR/networked environment is not likely to be too successful against a well equipped well trained adversary.

Not wanting to pour rain on your parade but as impressive as this reports make the aircraft out to be in terms of manourvreability, air combat is seldom about that any more.

The latest foreign order for the PLA F-7 was in 2008 by Nigeria. CDF was still reporting delivery as at Apr 2010 (possibly at a very slow rate from 2009 and maybe due to the chengdu earthquake). The line may still be open.

China, itself, obtained -G versions with the WP-14s engines but I think those deliveries may have ended 2009.

The latest foreign order for the PLA F-7 was in 2008 by Nigeria. CDF was still reporting delivery as at Apr 2010 (possibly at a very slow rate from 2009 and maybe due to the chengdu earthquake). The line may still be open.

China, itself, obtained -G versions with the WP-14s engines but I think those deliveries may have ended 2009.

I think Nigeria is going to get the planes from PLA stocks or even ex-PLA air craft. But that's just my opinion. Most of my sources confirm that the F-7 production has closed but if you could provide any links that contradicts this, it would be highly appreciated.

With all the civillian Mig-21s i'd very much like to see a qualified, experienced (and as crazy as that egyptian pilot in the video) military pilot fling it around to it's limits maybe in a mock dogfight to see what it's REALLY capable of. Most of the times Mig-21s went in combat they went in with a very poor system of C3 and very poor pilots when it came to dogfighting.

I think Nigeria is going to get the planes from PLA stocks or even ex-PLA air craft. But that's just my opinion. Most of my sources confirm that the F-7 production has closed but if you could provide any links that contradicts this, it would be highly appreciated.

I think US Aggressor 21 showed itself dangerous in low speed turns and pointing. At least F-15 pilots said so. And all that with just gun and old AIM-9 type AAMs.

I exercises with MiG-29 (with F-16 like AOA limt) US learned that combat against helmet pointed R-73 was thing to avoid as kill ratio was countless. Any aircraft with such weapon system would do similarly. That why Western priority was AIM-9X, AMRAAM and Stealth. Remember what was kill ratio during Falkland war just because of AIM-9L (Harriers didn't dare to use VIFF).

But confronting F-22 with AIM-9X with MiG-21 with R-73 in dogfight is not wise for F-22 because chances exists for both and F-22 is hundred times more expensive. And stealth does not works always as history showed. Situations will always come that most sci-fi fighters must engage in dogfight. Just as there will always be situation that you must fight well dig infantry.

The MiG 21 Bison with a slotted planar array FCR, R-77E, R-73 + HMD, RWR, HOTAS, LCD displays, a naturally small RCS and EL/L-8222 is definitely a potent point defence fighter. To be honest its these additional capabilities which make the MiG 21 dangerous in 2010, not its high AoA manoeuvre performance.

The MiG 21 Bison with a slotted planar array FCR, R-77E, R-73 + HMD, RWR, HOTAS, LCD displays, a naturally small RCS and EL/L-8222 is definitely a potent point defence fighter. To be honest its these additional capabilities which make the MiG 21 dangerous in 2010, not its high AoA manoeuvre performance.

What really makes the Mig 21 dangerous is they crash a lot,,,,India alone managed to crash 5 of them out of total of 11 migs crashed last year alone.. Out of about 800 migs India has crashed around 500; People are starting to call them the flying coffins.

RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | September 10th, 2008 | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |The IAF has the worst crash record on the planet. This is a world record. No other Air force has had the ignominious honor of so many crashes on non-battle conditions. The Indian press refers to the Mig 21 as the Flying Coffin, but they are all flying coffins or crematiion discs for the IAF pilots. There are have been more crashes of this aircraft than the entire airforces of more than half the world. The crash of the 500th plane serves as a milestone as the highest number of crashes of any airforce in the world in the history of mankind.
The bulk of the Indian Airforce is made up of all this flying junk that succumbs to gravity more then the bellies in the Indian Lok Sabha

Remember what was kill ratio during Falkland war just because of AIM-9L (Harriers didn't dare to use VIFF).

The Argentine aircraft in the Falklands were also operating at the extreme edge of their range and lacked the fuel to make proper use of their manoeuvrability - from what I understand this was a major factor in the success of the British in the air war. While the Sidewinder has always acquitted itself well and is no doubt a capable missile, this factor cannot be ignored.

I take the point that dogfights with modern HOBS missiles are dangerous for all involved, and from what I understand air combat exercises have reflected this. But in the same manner that such dogfights are dangerous for high end fighters, they are equally or more dangerous for a MiG-21 - the difference being that the MiG lacks the utility to excel in other areas. Thus my observation would be that the danger it poses and the capability it grants are logically somewhat limited next to modern aircraft, because dogfights are not the defining event in modern air combat.

I take the point that dogfights with modern HOBS missiles are dangerous for all involved, and from what I understand air combat exercises have reflected this. But in the same manner that such dogfights are dangerous for high end fighters, they are equally or more dangerous for a MiG-21 - the difference being that the MiG lacks the utility to excel in other areas. Thus my observation would be that the danger it poses and the capability it grants are logically somewhat limited next to modern aircraft, because dogfights are not the defining event in modern air combat.

In a BVR fight against a sophisticated enemy the MiG-21 would be a little out of its depth (although EL/L-8222 does change the game somewhat). But it all depends on what role you assign the platform. As a second tier point defence fighter operating as part of a hi-lo mix (like the MiG-21 Bison) I think the old girl can still throw her weight around. However I wouldn’t be conducting independent offensive counter air missions against anything more than Mirage 3's, the FCR and HUI simply isn’t up to scratch if you want to identify and engage targets over a large chunk of airspace. It was and still is a point defence fighter which needs GCI or AEW to be effective.

What really makes the Mig 21 dangerous is they crash a lot,,,,India alone managed to crash 5 of them out of total of 11 migs crashed last year alone.. Out of about 800 migs India has crashed around 500; People are starting to call them the flying coffins.

RUPEE NEWS | Moin Ansari | September 10th, 2008 | معین آنصآرّی | اخبار روپیہ |The IAF has the worst crash record on the planet. This is a world record. No other Air force has had the ignominious honor of so many crashes on non-battle conditions. The Indian press refers to the Mig 21 as the Flying Coffin, but they are all flying coffins or crematiion discs for the IAF pilots. There are have been more crashes of this aircraft than the entire airforces of more than half the world. The crash of the 500th plane serves as a milestone as the highest number of crashes of any airforce in the world in the history of mankind.
The bulk of the Indian Airforce is made up of all this flying junk that succumbs to gravity more then the bellies in the Indian Lok Sabha

In a BVR fight against a sophisticated enemy the MiG-21 would be a little out of its depth (although EL/L-8222 does change the game somewhat). But it all depends on what role you assign the platform. As a second tier point defence fighter operating as part of a hi-lo mix (like the MiG-21 Bison) I think the old girl can still throw her weight around. However I wouldn’t be conducting independent offensive counter air missions against anything more than Mirage 3's, the FCR and HUI simply isn’t up to scratch if you want to identify and engage targets over a large chunk of airspace. It was and still is a point defence fighter which needs GCI or AEW to be effective.

Very true, I've seen a video in which an F-15 Aggressor pilot attests to the performance of Indian MiG-21s at Red Flag, and going by that I wouldn't discount the platform. It's more that the roles to which it can be assigned in real warfighting scenarios are necessarily limited by its capabilities, and in terms of comparison to more modern fighters, one can't discount the support system behind a force equipped with said fighters.

It really shows its age, I think, when considered as a component of larger force-wide capabilities. As a point defence fighter it still might have some teeth - but when faced with a modern air force, how is the MiG going to close the distance without being seen by AWACs and killed with a BVR shot? How effective is GCI going to be when faced with a force able to deploy LO platforms, electronic warfare packages, and standoff munitions? These capabilities aren't foolproof, and they don't render the MiG useless - but the methods by which it can be used effectively are limited by their own vulnerability, which I think applies in varying degrees to any platform, but as I said I think the extent to which this is true for the MiG-21 is where the platform really shows its age.

I realise I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, though. Just thought I'd clarify what I meant.

Last edited by Bonza; July 19th, 2010 at 10:23 AM.
Reason: I make spell nice

Can some one give me some good information about Romania's Mig-21 Lancers. Some good lins would be great.
I know that 'X vs Y" posts aren't allowed on DT but can someone tell me in which ares the Lancer excels more than the Bison.